I just can't get past this writing. Clumsy metaphors about how your sexuality is a garden, your sexuality is an apple tree, and trite, repetitive encouragements about how you're so normal and so unique. It’s made worse by the over the top narration in the audiobook, where every other word has an exclamation mark appended.
Here are some highlights:
"The goal of understanding your brake and accelerator is not to understand what men are like, versus what women are like, but to understand what you are like: unique, with great potential for awesomeness."
"First, because it means your genitals are normal—and not just normal, but amazing and beautiful and captivating and delicious and enticing, on down the alphabet, all the way to zesty—regardless of what they look like. They are unique to you. The entire range is normal. Beautiful. Perfect."
"...she worried about sex while she was having it. She called it noisy brain—yup, totally high SIS. The noise is your sexual brakes metaphorically squealing, I said."
And here's where I really lost all patience:
"Imagine you're a male lab rat. [...] This time, imagine your brother is raised in the normal rat way but without the lemon thing, but during his first opportunity to copulate with a receptive female, the researchers put him into a rodent harness, a comfortable little jacket. If your brother is wearing his little rat jacket the first time he copulates with a receptive female..."
Wanting to make a book accessible to a wide audience is commendable, but you can't tell me that there aren't better ways than asking the reader to imagine themselves as a horny-for-lemons lab rat with a rat brother who likes wearing a rat harness during sex.
Writing aside, the science in the quarter of the book I managed to finish wasn't convincing or well-presented. For example, she states that Viagra/sexual stimulants don't work on women because of psychological "brakes," then moves on without a shred of explanation to back this claim. With the rat experiment quoted above, she uses it as evidence to argue that responses to sexual stimuli are learned and very little is innate, like "learning the language you're surrounded by." I have a serious problem with this blanket statement and the implications this view has on queer people. Perhaps she was intentionally simplifying it to make her point, but what you choose to omit is as crucial as what you choose to include.